"Windows is indeed slower than other operating systems in many scenarios, and the gap is worsening." That's one way to start an insider explanation of why Windows' performance isn't up to snuff. Written by someone who actually contributes code to the Windows NT kernel, the comment on Hacker News, later deleted but reposted with permission on Marc Bevand's blog, paints a very dreary picture of the state of Windows development. The root issue? Think of how Linux is developed, and you'll know the answer.

Yes, Linux sometimes works. XP allways works and works fully. That is a huge difference. The function of an OS is to be an OS... not to supply you with a huge amount of free software. By the way, there is huge amount of free open source software for win also. Look up softpedia.

So let us compare specifically how the OS compares out of the box. I'll state 4 scenarios. All 4 scenarios will consider what the experience would if we were to install an OS today.

A legacy Linux distro will work partially on this system. Videocard will barely work and sound card will partially. However, and this is vital... because of the flawed centralized software repo scheme no new software could be used. This effectively means no security and very limited functionality/productivity. So in effect, installing a legacy distro is not an option. Score F.

New Ubuntu or Mint. With Ati shit out of luck. F-
With NVIDIA will work. Will be slow but but speed wise usable. Of course new GUI systems like unity and gnome 3 are total crap and that should be taken into account. Let's pretend classic is used. in this case the score depends highly on hardware. You are playing the hardware lotto. If run virtualized, the score is an F because the harware can't handle with enough speed the hog that Linux is.

Legacy Linux. Can't be run for sane reasons as above. No axs to new packages/software. Score F-.

CONCLUSION
------------
One of the key functions of an OS is that is should work. Sometimes Linux does works but often it does NOT! You must play the hardware lotto. Yet it is the goal of an OS to make hardware work. So it fails at this very basic level.

Also, Linux does not age well. It is not usable with older hardware because that forces users to give up on new packages/software and security. In fact, even 2 year old hardware becomes obsolete real fast as with the Radeon 4XXX series forcing people to buy new hardware.

For hardware to work you need proper driver flexibility. Linux does not have this. Yes, this is a business issue not just an engineering issue but alas the result is the same. You are lucky to even get your hardware working. In Windows land you always have full hardware support.

In windows you can keep your software. They are not obsoleted by package updates.

Also, in the land of Windows... you can run up to date new software on old hardware.

In short Windows as an OS fulfills all the needs that an OS is supposed to fulfill. It is flexible and has long term hardware support. XP is 13 years old and is still marvelous.

I should also add that software developed for Microsoft still works for the most part in newer OS's because of the amazing backwards compatibility MS always achieves.

In short Windows has none of the problems Linux has.
With two exceptions of course, it is not free and not open source.